I think this is cherry picked data to suggest a point. Seems to me this has more to do with the state of the economy when you take office. If CC is historically high when you take office (i.e. GWB around 140), how can you possibly increase it significantly, and if you come into office with a historically low CC (i.e. Obama somewhere between 30-40) even a slight economic improvement can dramatically improve CC. At 70.3 is everything but respectable.

Expectations are a peculiar thing to graph. Remember, Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize on the expectation that he would reduce world tensions and America's role in causing peace. He has obviously failed, and actually ignited conflict where non had existed.

Expectations were high that Obama would improve America's economy, but has driven it into a malaise that is causing the government's credit rating to drop and millions of jobs disappear (which helps keep the unemployment rate to an artificially low ~8%). Just sayin'

Credit ratings drop because the income/debt ratio has fallen so far. It has noting to do with politics, it is an objective rating. The D/I rate has fallen because of the policies of the Obama, who for 2yrs had Congress to push through business regulations that are destroying our economy. Thank God the Repubs took the house in 2010, and stopped the decline!

Obama has been a disaster for America, at home and abroad. Let's pray this our pain will stop Nov 6th! Don't you agree? Just askin'

Are you kidding me, it's in the report how can you say the reason was this other thing when the reason was in the report, it cited political bickering as the reason, Thank your Tea Party, Michelle Bauchmann and Boehner. Please tell us your proof, which policy specifically got our credit rating dropped?

The rating is based on numbers, not any report. You are referring to a report written to say why the rating dropped. The bickering is irreverent. It's Obama's fault. He's the president, remember?
Reagan had Tip Oneal (Dem), Clinton had Newt Gingrich (Rep). Obama is over his head, and cannot seem to get the budget fixed. Period. He is and incompetent aristocrat that cannot seem to get things done.

Again you're not reading the report from Standard and Poor, the people that makes those decision, quit making up your own facts, and take some medicine for your romnesia. They said they were lowering it because of bickering in congress over the raising of the debt ceiling, this was when republicans were adamant about not raising it over some misguided principle when it had been raised numerous time in the past under Bush. Please reply with relevant answers not made up ones. If you want my proof, read the actual report. Jesus H. Christ.

That report show Obama's inability to slow the rate of spending. Thank God the Repubs took the house and have been able to stop those wasteful "stimuli", but are still unable to stop Obama's spending spree. Post your link, my contention is that it is someone's attempt to explain the change. The rating is because of the debt/equity (tax income) rate. Period. Learn a little bit about banking before showing your ignorance of credit ratings.

First we're not even talking about the same credit institutions, I mentioned Standard and Poor who downgraded us because of uncertainty due to inability to raise the debt ceiling because Republicans all of a sudden decided they're not gonna do it, although they've done it numerous times in the past with G. W. Bush, Republican obstructionism caused that down grade. The link you posted is the down grade from Egan Jones where the U.S. is buying mortgage back securities that went sour during the economic crisis and pumping money into the economy. So they're downgrading us for the mess caused by a deregulated Wall St. that allowed them to trade mortgages as securities in the market, I'm sorry but your analysis of what's actually going on is asinine at best, and pure inability to connect cause and effect. You're gonna blame the efforts to fix the mess that a Republican administration was unable to prevent, that's rich.

First we're not even talking about the same credit institutions, I mentioned Standard and Poor who downgraded us because of uncertainty due to inability to raise the debt ceiling because Republicans all of a sudden decided they're not gonna do it, although they've done it numerous times in the past with G. W. Bush, Republican obstructionism caused that down grade. The link you posted is the down grade from Egan Jones where the U.S. is buying mortgage back securities that went sour during the economic crisis and pumping money into the economy. So they're downgrading us for the mess caused by a deregulated Wall St. that allowed them to trade mortgages as securities in the market, I'm sorry but your analysis of what's actually going on is asinine at best, and pure inability to connect cause and effect. You're gonna blame the efforts to fix the mess that a Republican administration was unable to prevent, that's rich.

YOU are very ill- informed.... Fact is.. Obama is responsible for gaining back the world had lost for the USA under Bush.....
They just did a poll around the world... and the ONLY country polled that did not prefer Obama was Pakistan......

EVERY other country liked Obama by a HUGE margin....

that credit rating dropped due to the debt ceiling..... NOTHING MORE......

The Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage.... that is what downgraded the USA .......

The debt/income (tax rev.) is the reason the credit rating dropped. It is wrong to extend the debt ceiling, we must stop spending (wasting) money.

Obama has been the worst president since Jimmy Carter, and is an international disaster. Benghazi is just the latest example, leaving at least 2 of those men to suffer rape and torture with the means to stop it less than an hour away. He is a cold, uncaring aristocrat who doesn't seem to care about the common men. Middle class income has dropped 18%, erasing all the gains or the Bush years. Sure do miss Bush, don't you?

Sorry Captamerica. I realize that Obama is a black man and that probably REALLY pisses you off, but are you actually blaming the global recession on him? If you look at the situation without 'we have a damn black man as our president' glasses you will see that his actions undoubtedly stopped a depression.

The government should be austere when the market is going up and the government should spend money when no one else in the market will. It really is as simple as that.

If you want someone to blame for America's investment bank induced problems as well as the generally terrible state of affairs America is in then you need look no further than Bush Jr.

That man started wars for profit and allowed the single greatest catastrophe to happen to America in a generation. Funny how Obama is taking flack for the deaths of two men in a volatile country that was having riots when no one dared to put any blame on Bush for the twin towers incident. We call that a double standard. But that double standard is ok because Obama is not white, right?

Bush got handed a great economy and managed to utterly destroy it. And the tea baggers are upset that Obama hasn't cleaned up his mess in one term?? Oh by the way, man made climate change is a reality too.

You really need to get over your racism, I didn't say anything about him being black, you did. Think about it. This has nothing to do with race, you really need to consider why you are so hung up on it.

The government should stay out of the market. Government interference is the reason for this current recession, as it has been for most of the ones in the past.

Bush certainly shares part of the blame, he signed the 1st stimulus into law. It didn't work, they never do. You can't take from the producers and give to others.

What "wars for profit" are you talking about. Afghanistan was in response to our attack on 9-11 (you do remember that?) and Iraq was to stop an evil despot from using his weapons of mass destruction (as he had against his own people). The world changed on 9-11, someone need to clue Obama in. With real time information streaming in, and assets in Italy and the Med, he went to bed as our ambassadors were being brutally tortured to death (for ~5hours). Can you say heartless, uncaring bad guy?

Finally, Bush did get a great economy and spent like a drunken sailor on Aids to Africa, Katrina, Prescription Drugs, 2 wars, and on and on and on! With all that he only raised the debt by ~$4 Trillion. Obama has spent over $5 Trillion in half the time.

Isn't "tea-bagging" some sort of perverted sexual act? Please keep your perverted (as well as your racial) comments out of this discussion. Please.

So the story behind it goes like this: If the economy is in good shape, voters tend towards conservatism and choose the Republican candidate. If the economy is in bad shape, they long for a leader promising more equality - a Democrat. Is the positive picture for the Democrats in the graph simply owed to the natural business cycle or do they really put the better economic policies into practice?

There's evidence out there, I'm not gonna name sources, that regulations, reasonable and prudent ones that don't impede proper entrepreneurship but prevent malfeasance can actually ease the effect of contraction in the cycle of business. Like I said the literature is out there

There's evidence out there, I'm not gonna name sources, that regulations, reasonable and prudent ones that don't impede proper entrepreneurship but prevent malfeasance can actually ease the effect of contraction in the cycle of business. Like I said the literature is out there

Lets review what happened during Bush's term. Encouragement of outsourcing jobs to low tax countries like China. Subprime mortgages that were offered to people who they knew full well do not have the means to pay for it and then trading those as mortgage derivatives that poisoned the economy when people started defaulting on it. Two wars, both of which were not declared by congress and put on a credit card. A tax cut that still adds a significant chunk to the deficit til this day. Medicare advantage which decreased the time Medicare can stay solvent. Now lets see what happened during Clinton's term, a fucking surplus and he got head in the Oval office oh shit impeach the mothafucka. Ya'll got Romnesia.

I don't think anyone denies that the previous administration contributed a lot to the national debt but Obama still doesn't seem to be handling very well. Clinton got lucky and was riding on the internet bubble. You cant blame past administrations only when it's convient. There's an eb and flow that takes place throughout different administrations. You can hold clinton partly responsible for bush's first 4 yrs like you can Bush 4 Obama's first for and Bush Sr. for Clinton's first 4.

I don't think anyone denies that the previous administration contributed a lot to the national debt but Obama still doesn't seem to be handling very well. Clinton got lucky and was riding on the internet bubble. You cant blame past administrations only when it's convient. There's an eb and flow that takes place throughout different administrations. You can hold clinton partly responsible for bush's first 4 yrs like you can Bush for Obama's first for and Bush Sr. for Clinton's first 4.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any disclosure relating to President Obama's former employment at The Economist Group (and its subsidiaries). I think this would be a sound inclusion for the sake of journalistic integrity, no?

Why does the Economist continue to call former president George W. Bush "jr"???? First, he's not a junior, his father's name is Geroge H. W. Bush. Second, no one in responsible American journalism belittles him with such a title so why does the Economist still persist??? Glad I read this magazine for eveything but American news, however I am beginning to wonder about the rest of their reporting....

A. It sounds so much less regal than Bush the First and Bush the Second.

B. George Bush versus George Bush, hmmm confusing. George HW Bush versus George W Bush, which one was which? It's not all that clear outside the USA and not all that clear within it. Hmmm confusing.

Occam's Razor suggest that the simpler reason, to quickly distinguish between two almost identical names by order of seniority, beats the creation of an internal plot within the leading international apologist organ of capitalism to snarkily belittle the former captitalist in chief of the United States.

13 days until the national nightmare is over. Bye, Bye Obammy. History will record that Obammy will be in the bottom 5% of of all presidents. We got through Carter and got the great Reagan and will get through the misrable years of Obammy with Romney.

Not necessarily Obama taxes small business because those are the richer people who start the business (people making over 250k a year) these small businesses create 2/3 of Americas jobs. When taxing these businesses it makes them have to make budget cuts like cutting employees and spending means. Thats my opinion there I think that would be a better approach just an opinion.

Okay `jebstuart', your pen-name and pejorative warping of the President's surname both identify you as an anachronistic southern cracker... those points alone immediately disqualify you from being taken seriously.

Reagan's first term was pretty bad, Dems just couldn't find a reasonable guy to run against Reagan. In fact, Obama's first term has been better than Reagans, no? Wanting a successful Venture Capitalist as President is middle class suicide. Apparently another Robber Baron era is good for the US, in some people's minds...

The Great Reagan... Reagan got LUCKY with a tech boom and perfect timing for Supply Side economics to work out. Look at the debt before and after him and tell me he ACTUALLY left the country in a better place economically. Ask the millions more that became homeless how Reagan worked out for them...

counterpoint to that theory, tax hikes causing a situation where the middle class cannot afford the products that the job creator's company is pumping out, they will lose revenue and need to cut employment and spending also... Taxing the middle class, the MAJORITY of the spenders will not help small business either. Everyone will keep buying all of their over-seas manufactured products from large retailers like Wal-Mart. It will destroy the middle class and help make the 1% MORE money.

Which Reagan do you speak of? The Reagan who raised taxes 11 times or the
alternate reality Reagan who cut taxes and trickle down economics worked?
Anyone who believes Romney when he says "Government can't create jobs" and
then in the same breathe say "when I'm president I'll create millions of
jobs" is missing a lot of brain cells ..I'm guessing you're one of those people Jeb, you
sound pretty gullible.

Which Reagan do you speak of? The Reagan who raised taxes 11 times or the
alternate reality Reagan who cut taxes and trickle down economics worked?
Anyone who believes Romney when he says "Government can't create jobs" and
then in the same breathe say "when I'm president I'll create millions of
jobs" is missing a lot of brain cells ..I'm guessing you're one of those people Jeb, you
sound pretty gullible.

Sounds like he's a Fox News viewer, he won't have any evidence, just a gut feeling. Maybe that gut feeling is him needing to take a dump because he realizes he's ill equipped cognitively to debate politics.

When Al Qaeda attacks 8 months after a republican president is seated, it is his fault. When the economy stinks 4 years after a democrat is in office, it is the fault of the previous republican administration. Liberals need to own up to at least one of these issues.

Read my post again, I never said W or republican policies had nothing to do with the economy. On the other hand, Democrats policies cannot totally disown both of the issues mentioned above, which of course they have tried to do. Maybe if Clinton had taken out Al Qaeda, Bush wouldn't have needed to go to war and the economy Obama inherited would have been much better. Liberals want to fully blame Bush for 9/11 which led to a crappy economy, but the terrorists were already in the country before Bush even took office. If liberals want to state that Bush is 100% responsible for the state of the economy then they must also accept that Democrats are 100% responsible for 9/11.

By replying to my post is a negative fashion, you are inferring that you find it false. If you want to bring up other topic, that is totally and tangential, you would have started a fresh reply, or posted it in another thread completely. But you replied to mine.

Also, the logic gaps you have in your argument are hilarious, please reply with more

When you consider the fact that Bush in both of these scenarios of yours had prior knowledge to the situation and did nothing because in both cases it could benefit his own personal gain, it means that republicans need to own up to their mess. That by the way is completely ignoring your ignorance on the fact that you say Liberals need to own up to it when you mean Democrats as their are people in all parties who could be considered liberal or conservative.

Personally, I don't see any inconsistency there. I think that the President is much more powerful on matters of foreign policy and national defense than on matters of economy. As Commander-In-Chief, he pretty much has unilateral control over the military and intelligence arms of the government, so a President can be very effective in those areas. Whereas with the economy, the President's power is much more indirect, since he is subject to the whims of congress, the Federal Reserve, and the leaders of major banks and corporations.

Wwew you born yesterday? 2 wars while at the same time cutting taxes, deregulation that allowed wall st. and banks to trade subprime mortnages in the secondary market which was basically the main cause of the economic crisis. No where in history was that ever done. Derivatives that people were allowed to short knowing full well that they're tied to people with bad credit, if that wasn't a set up I don't know what is. When stupid presidents are seated like George Bush, regular Americans lose out it's a fact.

Were you born yesterday? 2 wars while at the same time cutting taxes, deregulation that allowed wall st. and banks to trade subprime mortnages in the secondary market which was basically the main cause of the economic crisis. No where in history was that ever done. Derivatives that people were allowed to short knowing full well that they're tied to people with bad credit, if that wasn't a set up I don't know what is. When stupid presidents are seated like George Bush, regular Americans lose out it's a fact.

9/11 Wasn't Bush's fault, if fault has to be assigned outside of the people whom actually did it, then the only presidential fault would be Bush Sr. or Reagan. Bin Laden was in the employ of the US during the 80s as they hired and militarized the islamic extremists in that part of the world to help undermine the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But the US messed it up, and didn't see to a proper end to the conflict. The only real responsibility for the Sept 01 attacks were in the people who did them tho.

Bush Jr was responsible for unilaterally invading a country which had absolutely nothing to do with said attacks, as a response. I mean... wtf?? In the Year following the attacks he could have invaded anyone if there was a shred of evidence that they were involved in the attacks, but no, he picks someone with no evidence of involvement, and only then 2 years later.

As for the economy, it was his job to reign it in when all the economic savants were saying "We're in the Long Boom", he didn't. It was partly a product of his (lack of) economic policies, partly a product of trying to keep the (false) economic stimulii going after 9/11. Mostly it was Clintons fault for relaxing the rules about packaging and distribution of Complex Debt Instruments, and yeah - it took 15 years for the problem to come to a head. Bush's big economic fault is the tax cuts, which unbalance the federal budget. That and his wars, which decimated it.

I hope for Obama, his policy on Libya was 1000x better than Bush's on Iraq. His policy on Iran is the only workable one. He bailed out the economy when it was needed. "It could have been worse" is an awfully hard election slogan to win with tho.

It is interesting how those who have never run large projects in big organisations have very little idea of the times scales required. Even in a large business, like IBM for example, a real turnaround can take up to a decade. After an administration that spent eight years turning a budget surplus into a monster deficit and got into more fights than a drunken para to expect it all to be fixed in four years, indicates a serious absence of any experience of the world.

NOBODY would have blamed Bush had it NOT been for a Daily Presidential Briefing that was titled.... Bin Laden determined to strike within the US boarder.....
and had it not been for Richard Clarke warning Rice and all of Bush's national security team that Al Qaeda was a huge threat and that they needed to be brought up to speed regarding Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden....
Rice took NO interest.. and neither did any of Bush's national security team....

So, YES..... I think there was a pretty good reason why Bush shouldered some blame over 9/11.....
So, to simplify this for you....

Had Bush taken the Daily intel brief seriously.... and had his team taken when Richard Clarke warned them about more seriously.... then there would have been NO way to blame Bush....

and I do recall the Republicans blaming Clinton 2 years into Bush's first term on the economy saying it was a Clinton's recession......

Your side started blaming Obama for the economy after the first year....

fact is.... 4 years is NOT really enough time to see if ANYBODY's policies are working after that kind of crash we just had.....

we are doing a LOT better than we were when Obama took office....

and he really has done a great job at getting the country back on it's feet.... it is not perfect yet.... BUT, I trust his policies much more than Romney.....

"I think one of the most pervasive evils in this world is greed and acquiring money for money's sake. Once you have six houses and a plane, it's just about a number. It's never been anything I understood."

"The chart shows the change from the month before the presidency is decided to the month before a new administration is determined." Why not use the names of the months since the date of election is not changing? And when is an administration determined? When the last appointment is made, when the term expires, when the last person serving in that administration expires?

I don't get it. We're looking at a chart illustrating the change in consumer expectation from the month before the presidency is decided to the month before a new administration is determined. Isn't that the same month? Once the presidency is decided, the administration is determined, no? What am I missing? What are we looking at?

I think the analysis needs to be more complex than a simple correlation between consumer expectation and presidential term. A swing in the expectations of consumers has a lot to do with whether or not something has appeared to change. In the case of Ford, the country was relieved to have Nixon out of the Presidency and to move on from the Watergate Scandal. In the case of Obama the country was spell bound by his energy and his promise of "Hope and Change" during his campaign and believe that he was going to make changes for the better. It would be interesting to see if what Obama's average would be at the end of a second term if the economy does not improve in those four years. Politics and the interplay of who is president and Indexes such as Consumer Expectations have a lot of different factors to consider making a simple correlation relatively worthless.

You really are talking out your ass even though you accidentally stumbled into a decent point. Obama has seen the numbers go up so much under him because they hit the floor with Bush. The point really is not nearly as strong as the graph implies for any of the positive cases because under all of them with a positive correlation you can see them coming in after a president with a negative one. All that can really be said from this about Obama is that he isn't the economy destroyer Romney and the Republicans wish he was but it doesn't really say much more than that.

I agree, McGeeSisters... I thought it odd that they would measure only for expectations in the weeks after the election. Then there was that "term average." So in other words, they're telling us how the original expectations likely changed as the presidency settled in. In that case, Bill Clinton's second term comes out the winner, and Johnson is second. Carter comes out the loser.

We seem to be ignoring the more important number which is the term average. Presidents with averages in the 60's don't typically get re-elected. Presidents with averages in the 70's and above typically do get re-elected (exception Bush Snr). It would also be interesting to see the slope of the index in the last few months leading up to the election to see if expections are rising or falling.

Romney is more optimistic than Obama about the economy proclaiming "Jobs, Jobs, JOBS!"
However he subscribes to the Harry Potter School of Economics planning on using a magic wand and incantations from the Book of Moroni.

He has NO IDEA how to run the Largest Economy in the History of the World.
At a time of ZERO funding for any new initiative.
Or how basic economic addition and subtraction affects a Zero sum game that is the Budget.

His latest plan for American individual retirement plan: Buy a lottery ticket. Pray and hope that you win. Then retire in style. OR not.

This is not a time for Amateurs. Or empty platitudes. Or Mitt Whinney.

One term of stumbling stewardship in the White House doesn't turn someone with no prior record of professional accomplishment in any respect into anything better than what he was when he entered the office - a tyro.

I get it - Getting elected as the first Black President of the United States is obviously not much of an achievement, Neither is being a senator nor is being a Harvard Law Graduate.

What matters is if you are born a millionare & then have earned millions of dollars exploiting the US tax code and defrauding the government, pounce on struggling American companies, dismantle them and sell the pieces overseas - Mr Romney

The latter is an achievement.. Right?

Why don't you just go ahead and say that you don't like Obama because he is black.

just to clarify, obama's mother is white. his upringing is also decidedly "white." i've never understood why so many people make a big deal about his race. when we elect someone who looks and talks like richard pryor i'll be impressed.

He [romney] has NO IDEA how to run the Largest Economy in the History of the World.

Isn't that just a bit unfair? Surely he will use his business experience. Let's see:
- Load up the country with as much debt as possible.
- Make huge bonus payments to the new executives
- Declare some kind of big dividend (for this purpose, a big tax break for those with high incomes)
- Leave the place to bankruptcy, and move on to the next opportunity.

That may not be what he intends. But it does seem to fit the pattern of his business experience rather well.

The Problem with the Fed Chairman is they have an incomplete, weak tool to control of the economy: Federal Interest Rates.
It is debatable whether even a strong Fed Chairman can even BEGIN to affect the economy. Otherwise the Great Recession would have only been a one month blip instead of a 4 year-plus nightmare.
It is steering an aircraft carrier with a canoe paddle.